Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 349 (RAJ)

Gyna Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2024-02-23

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant criminal appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Churu in Special Case No. 8/2010 whereby, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5 from offence under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and convicted them for offence under Section 352 IPC but instead of awarding any sentence, the trial court gave benefit of probation under section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5. A fine of Rs. 1, 500/- was also imposed upon each of the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5 under section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.09.2009, complainants submitted a complaint before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh to the effect that 09.08.2009 in the panchayat meeting, the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5 abused the complainants by using caste oriented abusive language and again on 10.09.2009 in a public place, the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5 abused the complainant with caste oriented words and insulted them. The court sent the report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to PS Rajaldesar. Upon which, FIR No. 85/2009 was registered against the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5 by the Police and investigation was commenced. 3. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5 for offence under Sections 352 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5, which they denied and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of accused-respondents No. 2 to 5 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, eight witnesses were examined. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 22.08.2013 acquitted the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5 from offence under 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act but convicted them for offence under Section 352 IPC and after due admonition gave them the benefit of probation under section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1, 500/- upon each of the accused under Section 5 of Probation of Offender Act. Hence, this criminal appeal. 6. 1, 500/- upon each of the accused under Section 5 of Probation of Offender Act. Hence, this criminal appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants-complainants submits that specific averment has been made by the complainant as well as witnesses regarding using caste oriented language against the complainant by the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5, but the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5 for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and after due admonition, also gave benefit of probation to them for offence committed under Section 352 IPC. Counsel submits that while passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5 ought to have been convicted offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and also sentenced for offence under Section 352 IPC. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 have vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the appellants and submitted that the order of acquittal is just and proper and therefore, requires no interference from this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial. 9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 5 from the said offence. The learned trial court while convicting the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5 has given benefit of probation under Section 3 of PO Act after due admonition. On perusal of the judgment impugned, it appears that the learned trial court has not committed any error in giving such benefit of probation to the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5. 10. The learned trial court while convicting the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5 has given benefit of probation under Section 3 of PO Act after due admonition. On perusal of the judgment impugned, it appears that the learned trial court has not committed any error in giving such benefit of probation to the accused-respondents No. 2 to 5. 10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellants have failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. 11. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : 2011(9) SCC 479 , ' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: “An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.” 12. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602 , ' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.” 13. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. 15. Record, if received, be sent back.